The search for a new Law School dean is proving to be a time-consuming and embarrassing task for the University.
Although three candidates were chosen early this school year, two of those finalists declined the position in lieu of offers from other U.S. colleges. Kevin Johnson, associate dean for academic affairs at the University of California-Davis, then became the sole candidate, but the University did not immediately extend him an offer. Administrators asked him to return for further interviews, which has stirred up allegations of racist hiring practices because Johnson is Latino.
The failed search for a dean is especially poignant considering emphasis placed by both student and University leaders in recent years on increasing faculty diversity.
Administrators have stated that race did not play a part in the dean search process, but they have yet to publicly offer an explanation for why Johnson was the only one of the three finalists asked to undergo follow-up interviews. He has an impressive resume, including working as editor of the Harvard Law Review. Moreover, Interim Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Charles Martinez has stated that “there is no question, and let me be clear about this: Culture was massively at play in these interactions.”
Administrators said they doubted Johnson’s experience in fundraising and alumni relations, interim Law School dean Margie Paris told students and faculty Monday in a townhall-style meeting. Yet law professor Keith Aoki, a member of the committee that searched for a replacement dean, said Johnson clearly displayed substantial qualifications for such duties.
The oddity of the search continued when the University eventually extended an offer to Johnson only after he had already withdrawn from the search. Johnson himself has not cleared up what went wrong, but he has told the Emerald that he is “glad that chapter in my life is behind me.”
Aoki and fellow professor Steven Bender have announced that they are planning leaves of absence next year in protest. Their decision speaks volumes about the tensions raised by this unusual situation.
Further, rumors have flown throughout the law school and elsewhere on campus about exactly why Johnson was not chosen. Without clear answers from the administration addressing faculty and student concerns about the process, this ugly hearsay will continue to spread and soil the University’s reputation.
Chief among our questions: How was this a cultural issue but not a racial issue? Is the former just a euphemism for the latter? Aren’t cultural tolerance and diversity just as important as purely racial diversity?
Although professors and administrators require different skill sets, and thus different people might focus on different attributes of candidates, why did faculty and administrators come to such different conclusions about Johnson based on the same information?
Perhaps tangential factors, such as Johnson’s views on immigration, a topic he writes about frequently, ruffled some feathers.
If the University is truly committed to a diverse campus, it is of the utmost importance that administrators not push the Johnson situation under the rug. Students, faculty and administrators alike deserve a comprehensive public conversation that will address allegations of racism and, we hope, prevent similar occurrences in the future.